Are We Losing Our Second Amendment Rights?

The title question is one on many people's minds especially these few days following the announcement that the socialist-tyrant Barack Obama has been re-elected.

The answer is "yes". However, the answer isn't really as simple to understand as that simple word.

Will Barack and his minions start confiscating weapons? Most likely not.

There are too many citizens who legally own firearms. Attempting to seize them will also be Constitutional violations of the Forth Amendment and the prohibition of ex post facto laws.

However, that right, seen essential to maintaining all other constitutional and natural rights, is in jeopardy.

Some may question that statement given that almost all states now allow for citizens to obtain concealed carry permits. Some may question that statement now that some of those states now also allow those with concealed permits to open-carry firearms.

Therein lies the answer itself. Requiring a permit to bear arms is an infringement of the rights to keep an bear arms. Those rights, per the second amendment, are to never be infringed. Yet they already are, in most states.

There are some states that allow open-carry without requiring a permit. Those states actually follow the second amendment. You also have a couple of states, such as Arizona, that do not require a permit to bear arms, be it concealed or open.

Requirement of the permits may raise a question concerning the Tenth Amendment. If you read the Tenth Amendment, the Second is an individual right that is explicitly stated in the US Constitution. States do not have the right to limit the rights to own or carry (keep and bear) to those with permission, nor can they limit it through taxation or collection of fees.

Some may make statements concerning drivers' licenses. There is no constitutional right to drive a vehicle on publicly owned roads. In fact, there is no constitutional right to drive, except on your own private property. States can charge for use of the roads and can enforce laws governing safe conduct and good order on those roads. The second amendment prohibits them from restricting the bearing of firearms on those roads, though.

So, the general attitude of the ignorant, uniformed, ambivalent, and apathetic have allowed those who seek absolute power and detest the US Constitution to convince them that requiring permits are not an infringement.

In addition, special taxes on firearms and ammunition are also an infringement. Cook County, IL, home to the commisar-in-chair, has passed a county tax on firearms and ammunition. It's a so-called "violence tax". The idea is that lawful gun owners, who are less likely to commit a violent crime than those who do not legally own firearms, must pay for the violence that firearms cause.

Read that again. An inanimate object allegedly commits violence. No it doesn't. Those who use firearms to commit crimes usually acquire them through illegal means. A good portion of them are already convicted felons who have lost their second amendment rights. They will not be paying taxes on the weapons. They will steal them or smuggle them. Even if they were able to take all the guns away from non-military and non-police citizens, those criminal would still have weapons. In fact, Cook County, IL has the strictest infringements on the Second Amendment in the country. Yet, they feel they need to add a "violence tax" because those infringements obviously do not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms through illicit means.

If not challenged quickly, this move could serve as what may become a national policy enacted by executive order. This is just extrapolation as no evidence of such an order exists.

Obama has directed the State Department to re-enter negotiations with the UN over their proposed Small Arms Treaty, though. This treaty was postponed and shot-down in the past, including this past summer. The treaty will require member nations to register all small arms weapons owned or produced by private citizens and report that data to the UN. All transfers and sales will also have to be reported to the UN. The treaty could direct limitations on calibers, numbers of weapons allowed to be owned, and the amount of ammunition allowed to be purchased in a given time period. It may even require accounting for each round expended. the excuse is that it will deter illicit weapons trade across international borders, such as the illicit trades the Obama Administration committed during Operation Fast and Furious. Criminals will still conduct illicit trade. This will not stop them. It will just infringe upon our Second Amendment rights and eliminate our national sovereignty.

You may think that gun-owners are "bitter clingers". Perhaps we are. We are bitterly clinging to what it means to be an American and retain the liberties we hold most dear:  Life, Liberty and Property (The Pursuit of Happiness). The reason for the Second Amendment is simple, but often ignored and overlooked. It is not for the purposes of hunting. It is for defense of self, family, and property, though. It is for defense against crime and to insure those natural rights are not infringed. However, the main purpose is to avoid tyranny. The whole reason was because the federal and state governments are allowed armed militia (the military and law enforcement agencies), private citizens must have the means to protect their rights should those armed militia start to overstep their bounds and be used as a tool to forcibly infringe upon those natural rights and other rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. When you look at it that way, they are to protect against the police, should they become a force to inflict tyranny. The Supreme court ruled, more than once, that it is not the job of law enforcement agencies to protect you. Add that together, and the vital necessity of the Second Amendment is more than clear. Now that amendment needs defending, since it is the most infringed upon and violated part of the US Constitution.